Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-25
TUESDAY. .....JANUARf 20, 1887
Interesting Question.

In the House of Representatives on
Saturday last the following resolution
was adopted:
Resolved, That the Committee on
the Judiciary be instructed to inquire
into the facts hereinbefore recited, and
TO report to this House whether treaty
which involves the rate of duty to be
imposed on any article, or the admis-
sion of any article free of duty, can
be valid and binding without the con-
currence of the House of Representa-
tiyes. and how far the power conferred
on the House by the Constitution OF
the United States to originate measures
to lay and collect duties can be con-
trolled by the treaty-makinS power
under said Constitution.
This resolution raises for decision a
question which has been discussed
heretofore. A bill to provide for levy
ing customs duties cannot become a
law without the consent OF both houses
OF Congress and the President. A
treaty is made by the President "by
and with the advice and consent OF
the Senate only.
But have the President and the Sen
ate the power to make treaty which
provides, let us say, for expending
money? Have the President and the
Senate the power to appropriate the
revenues Of the Government without
the consent of the House of Represen-
tatives, wherein the people are directly
represented? If they have that power,
is there any limit to it ? Can they APP
propriate only one million, or is 1t
within their power to appropriate ten
millions of dollars?
To ask these questions is to answer
them, it seems to us. If In treaty
there be no expenditure of money pro
vided for, nor any other feature which
requires action on the part of the House
of Representatives, of course nobody
would raise question az to the power
OF the President and the Senate to make
such treaty.
The question raised i'll the House of
Representatives on Saturday was not ex-
actly either Of the questions to which we
have referred, but was in substance,
whether the President and the Senate
could make a treaty abolishing or
changing law of the United States as
to customs duties? Or. to state it diff
ferently, can laws which were made by
the President and the two houses of
Congress, and which could not have
become laws in any other way, be abro-
gated by the President and one house
Of Congress
The case against the President and
the Senate is rendered stronger by the
proyIsion of tie Federal Constitution
which requirestha "all billsfor raising
revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives" Surely if the Senate
cannot, without the consent of the
House of Representatives, even consider
a bill for raising revenue, that body
cannot make treaty containing provl-
sions which properly belong to reve-
nue. bill If the Senate cannot levy GUS
toms duties, surely it cannot by its ac-
ton forbid the House of Representatives
to levy them. In word, as customs
Duties are always liable to be made a
subject of legislation by Congress
always liable to be changed 10y a bill
originating in the House of Representa-
tives-they cannot under the Constitu-
ton be the subject of treaty made by
the President, "by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. We cannot
conceive it to be possible that the
trainers of the Constitution intended to
confer that power upon the President
and the Senate.